LAC exists to spread information about development issues and current events in Latin America in Aotearoa (New Zealand). Our main focus is the Latin America Report, which covers events related to development, human rights and the struggle against poverty and oppression in Latin America.

FOR A LIST OF FILMS, VENUES AND SCREENING TIMES, GO TO:www.descargacubana.co.nz/sicubanas.html

NEWS

How did we sink so low in just 6 years? In a 253 to 168 “party-line” vote, the congress repealed habeas corpus and approved the torturing of prisoners in American custody. It is breathtaking assault on human rights and personal liberty and puts the United States well-outside the community of civilized nations. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15143.htm

Globalisation: make it work - Joseph Stiglitzwww.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/stiglitz_3931.jsp#Another world is possible, says the renowned economist. But by crisis or choice? Early in the book, Stiglitz contrasts developmental success in east Asia - whose governments, he said, kept a wary distance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) - with economic instability and widening income inequality in Latin America, where the policies of the Washington consensus were followed to the letter.

Don't Cry to Them, Argentina Is Monsanto playing fast and loose with Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina? http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/09/22/hearn/index.html?source=daily

In Argentina, which ranks second only to the United States in production of genetically modified crops, agro-giant Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soybeans are increasingly ubiquitous -- and controversial. RR soy fields are taking over jungles and savannas, with steep social and environmental consequences; meanwhile, Monsanto is finagling in European courts to reap more profit from Argentine farmers. Kelly Hearn traces a story of industrial-ag shenanigans and eco-ruin.

Chavez's Oil Gift, Part II September 21, 2006, New York Daily Newshttp://www.nydailynews.com/09-20-2006/front/story/454232p-382122c.html

Hugo Chavez, the fiery president of oil-rich Venezuela, ispumping up the volume - of cheap fuel oil for low-income NewYorkers. And he's named a Kennedy as head salesman.

Individual homeowners and cooperatives in four of the city'sfive boroughs will be able to buy cheap fuel this winter froman oil-for-the-poor program, sources have told the Daily News.

CITGO Petroleum, the U.S. subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company, has earmarked 25 million gallons of fuelfor low-income New York residents this year at 40% off thewholesale market price.

Bolivian President Evo Morales on Latin America,U.S. Foreign Policy and the Role of the Indigenous People of Boliviahttp://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/09/22/1323211

Evo at the UNhttp://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2006/09/evo-at-un-speech-delivered-by.html

Speech delivered by the president of the republic, Evo Morales Ayma, in front of the United Nations General Assembly. New York, September 19, 2006.

Thank you, president. Fellow brother and sister presidents, delegates to the 61 Ordinary Reunion of the United Nations.

It is an enormous satisfaction to be here present, representing my people, from my homeland, Bolivia and especially the indigenous movement.

I want to tell you, that after 500 years of be looked down upon, at times considered to be savages, animals, in some regions condemned to extermination, thanks to this consciousness and this uprising and to the struggle for the rights of the peoples I got to, we got here to repair the historic damage, to repair 500 years of damage.

During the republic, we were equally discriminated, marginalised, they never took into account this struggle of the peoples for life, for humanity during the last 20 years, with their application of an economic model - neoliberalism - that continued the looting of our natural resources, the privatisation of our basic services.

Convinced, and we are convinced, that the way of privatisation of basic services is the best way of violating human rights.

And these small considerations oblige me to say the truth here about the livelihoods of these families, I come to express this sentiment for the humanity of the peoples, from my people. I come here to express the suffering, the product of marginalisation, of exclusion, I come to express above all else, this anti-colonial sentiment of the peoples that struggle for equality and justice.

I want to say to all of the delegates, Ms president, that in my country we have begun to search for deep democratic and peaceful transformations, we are in a stage think of how to refound Bolivia, refound Bolivia to unite Bolivians, refound Bolivia nor to take revenge against anyone, despite the fact that we have been kept down through discrimination, refound Bolivia, above all, to finish with distain, hatred, against the peoples.

I say this because my mother was commenting to me, saying, that when she went to the city, she did not have to right to walk in the principal plazas of the cities of my country, they didn’t have the right to walk on the footpaths.

But happily we have decided to pass over from the social, union, communal struggle to an electoral struggle so that we ourselves can be the actors to resolve social problems, economic problems, structural problems, and we are waging for this Constituent Assembly of refoundation, and I would like the United Nations to participate in this process of peaceful and democratic change, which is the best we can do for these abandoned, marginalised families.

Certainly, many countries have the same problem as my country, a country, a nation with so much wealth but also with so much poverty, where the natural resources have historically been stolen, looted, auctioned off by the neoliberal government, handed over to the transnationals.

The time has come, now at the head of this struggle of the peoples for power and land, to recuperate, recuperate those natural resources for the Bolivian state under the control of the peoples.

And when we speak of recuperating our natural resources, via the dirty campaign of accusations, they say that the government of Evo Morales will not respect private property, I want to say to you, in my government private property will be respected.

It is true that we need investment, we need partners, not bosses, not owners of our natural resources, we understand perfectly that an underdeveloped country needs investment, and I want to say, to clarify in front of all of you some worries, some false accusations; if the state exercises the property rights of a natural resource such as natural gas, hydrocarbons, oil, then we don’t expel anyone, we don’t confiscate off anyone.

It will be respected, but we guarantee that they recover their investments and have make an earning, but they will not earn like before, from the (fat) so we are left not being able to resolve the social problems in my country later.

I want to say to you within this framework, I don’t come here to tell you how to govern or to threaten a country, or to begin to put conditions on a country, I only want you as international organisations, as a state with solidarity, as nations with principals of reciprocity, of brotherhood, to participate in this process of democratic change.

We have a great desire, a great interest in their being a conscious of this class in international forums, international reunions such as the United Nations to support, to wager on peaceful changes.

All of you know, especially here in North America as well as in Europe, that there are many Bolivians who go in search of work, before it use to be the Europeans that invaded Latin American, especially Bolivia, now it seems that the situation has changed, it is the Latin American, or the Bolivians, that are invading Europe like they did to the US before. Why? Because in this conjuncture, at this moment there is no job creation.

I want to say to all of you that we want to wager for a just trade, a peoples trade for the people, a trade which resolves the problem of jobs, that trade for companies is important is clear, but trade for micro and small producers, for cooperatives, for associations, collective companies, is more important.

I would like, and this is the one wish I have, that instead of my sisters and brothers going to Europe, how much better would it be that products go there and not human beings, and I believe that this has to do with consciousness in the international community, if we want to resolve the issue of immigration.

I have information that our sisters and brothers are not going there to monopolise thousands of hectares as those that came to Latin America did when they monopolise thousands of hectares, they came to take over ownership of our wealth, of our resources.

I believe that it is important that within this framework of trade, trade that is referred to as free trade, even in my country, affected and eliminated the large producers, the agro-industrialists, imagine the agreement signed by Colombia with the United States over the Free Trade Agreement, is already taking away markets from the soya farmers in Bolivia, from the agro-industrialists in Colombia.

I am convinced that it is important to import what we do not produce and export what we produce and that this would be a solution to the economic problem, the problem of employment.

I would like to take advantage of this opportunity, Ms president, to say that there are also other historical injustices, such as the criminalisation of the coca leaf. I want to say, this is a green coca leaf, it is not the white of cocaine, this coca leaf represents Andean culture, it is a coca leaf that represents the environment and the hope of our peoples.

It is not possible that the coca leaf is legal for Coca Cola and that the coca leaf is illegal for other medicinal purposes in our country, and in the whole world.

We want to say, that it is important that the United Nations recognise that with the help of North American universities, with European universities, we have scientifically demonstrated that the coca leaf does not damage human health.

It is very lamentable that due to customs, to bad customs, that the coca leaf is derailed into an illegal problem, we are conscious of that, that is why we say as producers of the coca leaf that there will not be free coca cultivation, but nor will there be zero coca.

The previously implemented policies, that had conditions imposed, talked of zero coca, zero coca is like talking of zero Quechuas, Aymaras, Mojenos, Chiquitanos in my country, this finished with our government, no matter how underdeveloped our country is, a country with economic problems which are a product of the looting of our natural resource wealth.

And we are now here to dignify ourselves, and we have begun to dignify our country, and within this process of dignifying I want to say, that the best proposal for the struggle against narco-trafficking has been voluntary reduction, agreed upon without deaths or injuries.

Happily I have heard the report from the United Nation, which recognises that this honest, responsible effort, in the struggle against narco-trafficking, has increased efficiency by 300% as opposed to confiscations which seize drugs,.

Nevertheless, yesterday I heard a report from the government of the United States, it says, that they do not accept the cultivation of coca, and that they are putting conditions on it that modify our norms.

I want to say with great respect to the government of the United States, we are not going to change anything, we don’t need blackmail and threats, the so-called certification or decertification in the fight against narco-trafficking is simply an instrument of recolonialisation or colonialisation of the Andean countries, that is unacceptable, that can not be permitted.

I want to say to you that we have, and we need, an alliance to fight against narco-trafficking, but one that is real and effective, so that the war on drugs can not be used as an instrument, a pretext, for them to subjugate the countries of the Andean region, just like they invented preventative wars to intervene into some countries of the Middle East.

We need a real fight against narco-trafficking, and I call on the United Nations, I invite the government of the United States to make an agreement, an effective alliance to fight against narco-trafficking, so that the war on drugs is not used as a pretext to dominate us, or to humiliate us, or to try to establish military bases. In our country they use the pretext of the fight against narco-trafficking.

I take use of this opportunity to say that, within this process of change, we want justice, that justice be carried out is important for our peoples, but I feel that via the Constituent Assembly we are going to decolonise the law in order to nationalise justice, real justice.

That the people implicated in the violations of human rights, peoples threaten with military interventions, there will never be justice there, we are obliged as presidents, as head of states to dignify humanity by ending impunity.

In the previous governments in my country, they massacred people that struggle for their economic demands, for their natural resources, and it is not possible that perpetuators of genocide, corrupt criminals, escape in order to live in the United States, in a developed country such as United States.

I ask with a great deal of respect, expel these perpetuators of genocide, criminals, corrupt ones that come to live here, if they have nothing to do with it, why don’t they defend themselves in the Bolivian justice system.

I am obliged, as president, to demand that these authorities be tried in the Bolivian justice system, and I believe that no country, no head of state can protect, hid, delinquents, the perpetuators of genocide.

Hopefully with the help of the North American people, hopefully via international organisations, the people that have done so much economic damage, damage to human rights, will be tried, given that they have never respected human rights.

I have a recommendation for the permanent forum of the indigenous peoples, in front of the debates about the rights of indigenous peoples, in front of the debates about the rights of indigenous peoples that are in the subcommission of the rights of indigenous peoples in the United Nations in Geneva, in the Organisation of American States, I have information that this debate has reached this maximum instance of the United Nations.

I want to ask you in the name of the indigenous peoples of the world, especially of Abyalala, now called America, to urgently approve this declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples of the world, the right to self-determination, the right to live in community, collectively, the right to live in solidarity, in reciprocity, and fundamentally the right to live in brotherhood.

There are regions were communities live without private property, there is collective property, the indigenous peoples only want to live well, not better, to live better is to exploit, is to loot, to rob, but to live well is to live in brotherhood and that is why it is very important, president, that the United Nations urgently after the decade of the indigenous peoples, that this declaration of the rights of the indigenous peoples, the right to natural resources, the right to look after the environment, be approved.

Finally president, the indigenous peoples, the poor come especially from a culture of life and not a culture of war, and this millennium will really have to be to defend live, to save humanity and if we want to save humanity we have the obligation to save the planet. The indigenous peoples live in harmony with mother earth, and not only in reciprocity, in solidarity, with human beings.

We feel greatly that the politics of hegemonist competitions are destroying the planet. I feel that all countries, social forces, international organisms are important, let us begin to debate truthfully, in order to save the planet, to save humanity.

This new millennium, the millennium that we find ourselves in needs to be a millennium of life, not of war, a millennium of people and not of empire, a millennium of justice and equality and that any economic policy needs to be orientated towards ending, of at least lessening these so-called asymmetric differences between one country and another country, those social inequalities.

We are not trying to implement policies that allow the economic humiliation or economic looting; when they cannot loot according to the norms, they use troops.

I want to ask with great respect, that it is important to withdraw troops from Iraq if we want to respect human rights, it is important to withdraw economic policies that allow the concentration of capital in only a few hands.

And for this, I feel president, that these events should be historical in order to change the world and to change economic models, interventionalist policies. Above all else we want them to be times that allow us to defend and save humanity

Popular Armed Defense Called for in Bolivia http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2006/09/popular-armed-defense-called-for-in.html

La Paz September 21 (Granma).-- The Bolivian government has urged small farmers to take up arms if necessary in defense of the ongoing process of change occurring in the country since Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous president, took office in January of this year.

The government's move to recuperate the country's hydrocarbon reserves from foreign interests, new education and healthcare programs, an agrarian reform, and hopes that the currently convened Constituent Assembly will draft a new more inclusive constitution have been met with resistance from privileged sectors of society.

On Wednesday, acting President Alvaro Garcia addressed the need for the peasant population to be on guard when speaking in the town of Warisata during the commemoration of the third anniversary of the first six deaths of the killings ordered by former president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada to crack down on a social protest.

Garcia, who years back joined an armed indigenous group operating in the zone, said the rural population should be ready to defend the nationalization of Bolivia's hydrocarbons.

The vice president said that if necessary, they will take up the fight 50 or 60 times until the oil companies, speculators and criminal politicians that have plundered the country pay attention.

The call comes amid stepped-up conflict and pressure by conservative, regional and other opposition forces demanding that the Constituent Assembly decisions be made by a two-thirds vote.

Divided Mexico - Part 1: The Bankers' Alliance Holds on to Powerby John W. WarnockFor a brief time the media in Canada and the United States gave somecoverage to the July 2 election in Mexico. There was a threat from thesocial democratic left - the possibility that Andres Manual Lopez Obrador(AMLO) might emerge as the next president. The U.S. government, concernedabout the spread of the new socialism across Latin America, settled backwhen the Mexican establishment carried the day. Nevertheless, the electionproduced a major shift to the left, angered the poor and disenfranchised,and heightened social divisions and political resistance.

Mexico was ruled by a succession of generals until President Lazaro Cardenas(1934-40) restructured the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). Apopulist party, it included the trade unions, peasant organizations, a civicalliance, and small business organizations. The PRI governed Mexico between1929 and 2000 as a one-party state. Through the system known as"Presidentialism," the PRI completely dominated. Elections were a farce asthe PRI won them all, legislatures rarely had any representation from otherparties, and the President appointed everyone, including his own successor.

In 1939 a group of right wing Catholics, business leaders and large landowners formed the National Action Party (PAN) to defend the church, protectprivate property rights, and to push for a government similar to FranciscoFranco's in Spain. They received strong support from the MexicanConfederation of Employers (COPARMEX), whose slogan was "not class strugglebut class collaboration." The PAN provided token opposition to the PRI downto the 1980s when it began to seriously contest local elections, demanding aliberal democratic electoral regime.

Mexico has always been run by powerful wealthy families, foreign capital,large landowners and the hierarchy of the Catholic church. The "bankers'alliance," as they are known is Mexico, dominated the leadership and policyof the PRI. It is commonly said that Mexico is run by 300 families.Protected until the 1980s from competition from foreign firms, powerfulfamily groups have run the economy. In 2000 eight groups controlled around70 percent of the stock on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores. The mostinfluential organization has been the Mexican Council of Businessmen (CMHN),37 of the richest men who in 1994 contributed $750 million to the PRI'spresidential campaign.

The first challenge to the bankers' alliance came in the 1988 presidentialelection. When Carlos Salinas de Gortari was nominated to be the PRIcandidate, the moderate left wing caucus, the Democratic Current, left thePRI and organized the National Democratic Front, an electoral alliance withseveral small parties, the political left, and a broad range of popular andcommunity organizations, Mexico's "rainbow coalition." They supportedCuauhtemoc Cardenas, the former PRI governor of Michoacan, for President.The 1988 election was the biggest fraud in Mexican history. With 60 percentof the votes counted, and Cardenas with a good lead, the PRI-controlledFederal Electoral Commission (CFE) shut down the vote count; ten days laterthey proclaimed that Salinas had won by a narrow plurality. It was Mexicanpolitics as usual. Salinas and his successor, Ernesto Zedillo, pursued theneoliberal agenda of big business and embraced NAFTA.

The PRI's control over the Mexican political system was broken in 2000.Vicente Fox, the candidate for the PAN, was elected president with 43percent of the vote to 36 percent for the PRI's candidate and only 17percent for Cardenas, now running for the Party of the Democratic Revolution(PRD). With the introduction of a modified system of proportional election,the PRI lost control of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate, andpolitical pluralism emerged. But the bankers' alliance was not worried; Foxwas a businessmen and rancher, one of their own, and the PAN was solidly onthe political right.

The threat from the PRD

Lopez Obrador was elected as Head of Government of Mexico City in 2000.AMLO, as he is known, was a history teacher from Tabasco, where he was anactive member of the PRI. In 1988 he joined the Democratic Current, left thePRI, and backed Cardenas for president. In 1994 he ran for governor ofTabasco for the PRD and lost in an election stolen by the PRI. He is knownfor his strong support of the rights of indigenous peoples, his dedicationto fair elections and ending corruption, and a willingness to use civildisobedience to confront injustice. As head of the government of Mexico Cityhe led a fight against crime, greatly reduced corruption, worked to help thepoor and introduced the first universal pension for seniors. When he leftoffice in 2005 public opinion polls reported he had an approval rating ofover 80 percent.

Other polls indicated that Mexicans wanted AMLO to be the next president.While he is not a radical, he supported the broad coalition of peasantorganizations that asked for a renegotiation of NAFTA to exempt agricultureand food. He advocates taxing corporations and the rich and using therevenues to expand social programs in a fight against poverty andinequality. Mexicans quickly became disillusioned with Vicente Fox and thePAN, and in the mid term elections in 2003, only 40 percent bothered tovote.

The bankers' alliance took up the challenge. The wealthy political elite inthe PRI began to work out a political agreement with the leadership of thePAN. In 1989 the legislature had created the Federal Electoral Institute(IFE), which earned the respect of the Mexican people for their commitmentto a clean electoral process. But this changed in November 2003 when the twoparties in the Chamber of Deputies appointed their allies to the nine-memberGeneral Council. Nominations by the other parties to the Federal JudicialElections Tribunal (TEPJF), the highest electoral court, were also rejected.The partisan nature of these two bodies was demonstrated in the 2006election.

In 2004 the PAN-PRI alliance stripped AMLO of his legislative immunity sothat he could be sued by a landowner for expropriating a piece of land tobuild a road to a Mexico City hospital. This court action would have madehim ineligible to run for President. After a demonstration of over onemillion supporters in Mexico City, President Fox abandoned the process.

Carlos Salinas, back in Mexico and deeply involved in building the PRI-PANalliance, helped to engineer a sting operation where several businessmenmade payments to two government officials in Mexico City to further theirconstruction projects. The transfer of cash was secretly filmed and then runon television for months to demonstrate that the PRD was not free ofcorruption. AMLO's support in the polls fell by 15 points.

The bankers' alliance directly entered the campaign. Aided by Dick Morris,former adviser to Bill Clinton, they spent more than $19 million ontelevision ads; third party political advertisements are illegal underMexican law. The U.S. International Republican Institute, funded by theNational Endowment for Democracy, helped train PAN activists. Foreigninterference in an election is also a crime. PAN election spending farexceeded the legal limits. President Fox spent six months campaigning forCalderon, which is contrary to Mexican law. All these illegal activitieswere recognized by the Federal Judicial Elections Tribunal, which concludedthat they did not have a significant effect on the outcome of the election.

Election results disputed

On July 2 around 60 percent of eligible voters went to the polls. Theresults announced by IFE were as follows: Felipe Calderon, candidate for thePAN, 36.38%; Lopez Obrador, 35.34% and Roberto Madrazo, the candidate of thePRI, 21.57%. The margin of victory for Calderon was only 244,000 votes. Nomajor frauds were reported. However, many people went to the polls, foundthey were not on the voters' list, were sent to special voting stations, andfound there were no ballots. This was especially the case in low incomeareas where the PRD was strongest.

Going into the election, national polls indicated that AMLO had a lead ofaround three percent. The two television networks, Televisa and TV Azteca,did extensive exit polls which indicated that AMLO had won, but they did notreport the results. A large exit poll by the Instituto de Mercadotecnia yOpinion showed AMLO had won, again not reported by the corporate media.Academics who closely monitored the returns reported by IFE noted thatthrough most of the election night AMLO was ahead by a steady margin ofabout three percent. Then, with around 70 percent of the vote counted, thereports from the polls changed dramatically, with a five and then ten to onemargin going for Calderon up to the end. IFE officials claimed that thisdiscrepancy was due to the fact that rural votes came in last. ButCalderon's support was weakest in the rural areas. Shades of 1988.

Supporters of AMLO gathered by the hundreds of thousands in the zocalo ofMexico City, demanding a complete recount. They camped there for weeks. Apoll by El Universal one of Mexico's major newspapers, revealed that 59percent believe that there had been fraud. A poll in August found 48 percentwanted a complete recount, while on 28 percent supported the announcedresults. The New York Times and the Financial Times called for a recount inorder to establish the legitimacy of Calderon's apparent victory. ButPresident Fox, Calderon and the bankers alliance said "no!" They would rideout the storm, as they did in 1988.

The PRD presented the Electoral Tribunal with 800 pages of documentation ofproblems with the election. They challenged results in 72,000 of the 130,000electoral districts, noting that there were major discrepancies between theballots delivered to polling stations, the votes counted at these stations,and often between votes counted and numbers on the official voters' list. Insome areas the vote for Calderon exceeded the number on the voters' list.They protested that officials at IFE had opened many of the sealed ballotboxes after the election, which is against the law.

On August 5 the Electoral Tribunal dismissed the challenges from the PRD butordered a recount of 11,839 voting stations in 149 districts, coveringaround 3.8 million voters. On August 28 they announced that they hadannulled ballot boxes which contained 237,000 votes, but insisted that thishad no effect on the outcome of the election. They refused to release anydetails of the recount.

The PRD and its allies, the Workers Party (PT) and Convergencia, hadobservers at all the recounts. They recorded the following from this sample:

* In 3,074 polling stations there were a total of 45,890 illegal votes,above the number of recorded votes. This was primarily in PAN areas ofstrength.

* in 4,368 polling stations a total of 80,392 ballots were missing. If this sample was characteristic of the entire country, it would mean adiscrepancy of over 1.5 million votes, clearly enough to change the electionresults.

On September 5 the Federal Judicial Elections Tribunal finally declaredCalderon the winner of the election. The court noted the criticism of theprocedures on election day but argued that they did not have enoughinformation to conclude that this affected the election results. Theyannounced that the ballots would be burned, as in 1988, thus blocking anindependent recount requested by a group of academics and El Proceso newsmagazine.

But this is not 1988. Mass mobilizations have disrupted the politicalestablishment. More have been scheduled. A National Democratic Conventionwas held in Mexico City on September 16, declaring AMLO the real president,and appointing a commission to draft a plebiscite to call a newconstitutional convention.

The media focus on the presidency has obscured the fact that this electionhas changed Mexican politics. The PRI was routed in the vote for president,the elections for the legislature, and failed to carry a single state. ThePRD is now the second largest party in the legislature. If there had been arun off vote for president, which is common in Latin America, AMLO wouldhave likely won, for the rank and file supporters of the PRI are peasantsand ordinary workers who hate the PAN. Even more than Fox, Calderonrepresents the rich and powerful.

Political conflict is on the rise across Mexico. Miners are striking. Anational strike was held in February. Police killed two strikingsteelworkers in Michoacan. Security police viciously attacked street vendersin the State of Mexico. Striking teachers and their supporters occupy thecentre of Oaxaca City, demanding the resignation of the Governor and havecreated an alternate government. Police and military are again stepping upthe harassment of peasants in Chiapas. The general political trend acrossLatin America has moved up to the Rio Grande.

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and author of The OtherMexico: The North American Triangle Completed. He was a member of theCanadian team of observers for the 1994 and 1997 Mexican federal elections.In February 2006 he did research on the maquiladora zone industries inMatamoros, Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana.

Mexico Part 2: Poverty, Inequality and NAFTA

September 27, 2006

There was very little coverage of the Mexican election in the North Americanmedia this past July. But editorial opinion after the results were reportedwas uniform: Andres Manual Lopez Obrador and the Party of the DemocraticRevolution (PRD) should shut up, accept their defeat and wait until the nextelection. Nevertheless, a few newspapers did mention that thepresident-elect Felipe Calderon of the National Action Party (PAN) wouldhave a difficult time dealing with a "deeply divided country" where around50 percent of the population lives below the poverty line.

Wasn't the North American Free Trade Agreement supposed to fix this problem?According to the World Bank, 50 percent of the population is living inpoverty and around one-fifth are living in "extreme poverty," with an incomeof less than one U.S. dollar per day. This World Bank standard may berelevant to some countries in Africa, but it is ridiculous to apply it toMexico where no one can survive on one dollar a day.

In 2002 the Mexican government introduced its own definition of poverty. Itdistinguishes between rural and urban poverty. The three classification areas follows, converted from Mexican pesos to U.S. dollars:

(1) Food-based poverty. Income is not enough to cover basic food expenses.This includes 20 percent of the population. Individual income is $50 permonth in rural areas and $67 per month in urban areas.

(2) Capabilities poverty. Income is not enough to cover basic food, health,and education. This includes 27 percent of the population. Individual incomeis $60 per month in rural areas and $80 per month in urban areas.

(3) Basic needs poverty. Income is not enough to cover basic food, health,education, clothing, housing and public transportation. This includes 50percent of the population. Individual income is $95 per month in rural areasand $137 in urban areas.

Poverty levels in Mexico City

The average household in Mexico has five members. In urban areas like MexicoCity, this standard family would be expected to survive on $685 per month.This is the official basic needs poverty line.

These government classifications have been criticized by independentscholars who put poverty levels considerably higher. For example, since 1978the Centre for Multidisciplinary Analysis (CAM) of the Faculty of Economicsat the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has been collectingstatistics on what is actually required to live in Mexico City. Their basicneeds basket is very limited: 35 items which includes food, toiletries,public transportation, electricity, and gas for cooking. It excludes rent,education, health, clothing, recreation and culture. While the government'surban basic needs poverty level was set at $4.57 per day per person in 2002,the actual costs of the CAM basket of goods alone was $28.82 per day.

In 2002 the minimum wage in the urban areas like Mexico City was $4.87 perday. Because of inflation and devaluation of the Mexican peso in relation tothe U.S. dollar, between 1982 and 2002 the real value of the minimum wagehad fallen by 82 percent. During the presidency of Vicente Fox (2000-6) itdeclined by 22 percent.

A study by Patricia Munoz of the Faculty of Economics at UNAM found that"the minimum wage that entered into force on January 1, 2006 is only enoughto obtain 16 percent of what a worker could buy two decades ago with thesame salary." The minimum wage in Mexico "has suffered the largest, mostserious and drastic deterioration in all of Latin America."

Official government statistics report that 10.78 million Mexicans work forthe minimum wage or less, which is around 24 percent of those who have somekind of employment. Forty one percent of workers earn the equivalent of twominimum wages or less.

Finding a job

The average family in Mexico needs a number of sources of income to survive.But the opportunities for employment are limited. Of the population of 106million, around 44 million are considered to be actively involved in thelabour market. Of these, only around 20 million are in jobs that pay a wageor a salary, and in 2004 only 45 percent of these workers were covered bythe contributory social insurance system.

According to government calculations, during the years of the presidency ofVicente Fox, around 1.4 million workers entered the labour force each year.However, the economy only created on average 524,000 new jobs per year overthis period. Thus 68 percent of new workers have had to survive in the"informal economy," remain unemployed and dependent on their families, orhave fled to the United States. Around 1.3 million people work in thestreets.

During the period between 1961 and 1980 the average per capita real economicgrowth in Mexico was 3.4 percent, higher than in either the United States orCanada. The rate of inflation was very low, and the industrial sector of theeconomy grew. So did formal employment and wages. At the time, the WorldBank and other institution described this as Mexico's "economic miracle."

But this changed with the world recession of the early 1980s and thecollapse of the price of oil. The Reagan-Thatcher free market and free trademodel was forced on Mexico. Between 1981 and 1990 the average real rate ofeconomic growth fell to -0.3 percent and rose only to 1.9 percent between1991-2000.

While other middle income countries, like Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan andSingapore have been steadily narrowing the gap between their wages and thoseof the United states, this has not been true of Mexico. For example, in 1975manufacturing wages in Mexico were 23 percent of those in the United States;this fell to 11.5 percent in 2001.

A study by Enrique Dussel Peters of the Faculty of Economics at UNAM foundthat between 1988 and 2001 those industries that were most affected by thetrade liberalization policies represented by NAFTA showed a downward trendin real wages but had the highest rate of productivity increases. Employersin the export industries were getting much more out of their workers whilepaying them less in wages and benefits.

Nevertheless, with the internationalization of production, and the openeconomy, the major companies are shifting work out of Mexico. For example,the average wage for electronics workers in Guadalajara in 2004 was $US1.80per hour; in Shenzhen, one of the high wage areas in China, it was $US0.77per hour. Workers in the maquiladora factories in the border zones in Mexicocomplain that the shift in production to Asia and Central America has led toa downward pressure on wages during the Fox presidency.

Persistence of inequality

Official government figures show that between 1963 and 1985 inequalitysteadily declined. With the onset of the "lost decade" of the economy andthe shift to the policies of neoliberalism, inequality again began toworsen. Some improvement has been seen since this low point. But in 2005 thetop 10 percent of households averaged an income of $US4,261 per month; thebottom 10 percent of households averaged US$166 per month.

The U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean points outthat Mexico, a middle income country, "competes with other Latin Americancountries for the first places on economic, social and gender inequality."Very powerful business organizations preside over a hierarchical class andsocial system. Mexico is also described as a "pigmentocracy," for thosefamilies at the top stress their "whiteness" and Spanish blood while thoseat the bottom of the social hierarchy are the dark skinned indigenouspeoples, who are also the poorest.

The Mexican government has introduced a new anti-poverty program,Progresa-Oportunidades, which is targeted to those living in extremepoverty. With a budget of $2.8 billion, it provides financial support forschool supplies, expanded health services, and a payment of around $US15 permonth to women for the purchase of food. By 2005 it provided cash subsidiesto around five million families, or 24 percent of the total population. Theprogram has faltered under President Fox.

One of the most serious obstacles to combating poverty is the fact that allMexican governments have hesitated to impose taxes on corporations, wealthand those in higher income brackets. Between 1988 and 2002 socialexpenditures dropped as a percentage of gross domestic product from 11percent to two percent. Government spending in general accounts for lessthan 20 percent of Mexico's gross domestic production, compared to over 40percent in the developed countries.

The most important contribution to the reduction of poverty in Mexico is theremittance of earnings from family members working in the United States. TheMexican government reports that there are nine million Mexicans living andworking in the USA; this increased by 2.5 million during the presidency ofVicente Fox. They are now remitting over $20 billion annually, mostimportant to low income families.

Felipe Calderon has proclaimed that he will make the reduction of povertyand inequality the primary aim of his new government. Mexicans do not expectmuch to change. The structure of the economy will not change. The generalpolicy shift away from serving the domestic market and emphasizing exportshas led to lower rates of economic growth, relatively lower wages, thecreation of few jobs, and increased inequality. Across Latin Americansimilar trends have promoted the shift to the political left. Mexico is noexception.

John W. Warnock is a Regina political economist and author of The OtherMexico: The North American Triangle Completed. He was a member of theCanadian team of observers for the 1994 and 1997 Mexican federal elections.In February 2006 he did research on the maquiladora zone industries inMatamoros, Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana.

Subscribe Latin America Report: A bi-annual publication providing up todate information and analysis on developments in Latin America, as well as news on solidarity activities in this country. We are looking for extra help with editing, selecting copy, layout and website management.Contact: lac@apc.org.nzSubscriptions $15 per year, Supporter $30 Cheques/donations payable to Latin America Committee, Box 6083, Wellington. Contact: Lac@apc.org.nz